On Point blog, page 166 of 263
It doesn’t take much to find someone is dangerous for purposes of a ch. 51 commitment
Rock County v. J.N.B., 2014AP774, District 4, 3/26/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Having rejected the no merit report filed by J.N.B.’s appellate counsel and ordered counsel to brief the issue of the sufficiency of the evidence, the court of appeals declares “the County presented ample evidence demonstrating that J.N.B. is dangerous because he evidences such ‘impaired judgment, manifested by evidence of a pattern of recent acts or omissions, that there is a substantial probability of physical impairment or injury to himself,’” § 51.20(1)(a)2.c.
Search of detained passenger was legal because police had probable cause to arrest him
State v. Antwan D. Hopson, 2014AP1430-CR, District 2, 3/25/15 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Even though Hopson was not formally under arrest at the time police searched him in a manner that exceeded the allowable scope of a frisk, the search was legal because the police had probable cause to arrest Hopson for possession of marijuana.
Defendant’s request for a “public pretender” deemed a big joke
State v. Johnny Jerome Jones, 2014AP342-CR, 3/24/14, District 1 (not recommended for publication); click here for docket and briefs
Jones turned himself in for a hit-and-run accident that resulted in death. During the interrogation, and after being Mirandized, he asked the detective: “So ya’ll can get a public pretender right now?” The detective laughed and replied: “You said it right, pretender . . . . they’re called public defenders . . . Um, we obviously due to the time right now, we can’t, um . . . .” Jones moved to suppress his subsequent statement and lost at the circuit court and on appeal.
Third trial not a charm
State v. Tyron James Powell, 2014AP1053-CR, District 1, 3/24/15 (not recommended for publication); click here for docket and briefs
After obtaining two mistrials, Powell probably thought he’d get lucky the third time around. Instead, he got a conviction followed by a court of appeals decision that rejected his arguments on impeachment evidence, on the admission of his prior convictions and on his trial lawyer’s ineffectiveness for failing to file a suppression motion.
Voir dire panel “untainted” despite deputy/juror’s assertion that State had enough evidence to convict defendant
State v. Dawn M. Hackel, 2014AP1765-CR, District 4, 3/19/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
During voir dire at an OWI trial, a sheriff’s deputy/prospective juror said he had arrested drunk drivers, testified in drunk driving cases, and said that based on his professional training and occupation the State had sufficient evince to convict Hackel, and, therefore, she was guilty as charged. The court of appeals held this in no way tainted the jury panel heading into trial.
Court properly exercised discretion in severing legal ties of grandmother in TPR disposition
State v. Jasmine W., 2014AP2960 & 2014AP2961, District 1, 3/18/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity: 2014AP2960; 2014AP2961
The circuit court applied the proper standard of law to the relevant fact when it declined to place Jasmine’s children with their grandmother, found no substantial relationship between the children and their grandmother, and concluded that it would not cause harm to sever the legal ties between the children and their grandmother.
Trial court’s post-verdict meeting with jurors wasn’t error; its exclusion of defendant’s medical records was error, but it was harmless
State v. Wade M. Richey, 2014AP1758-CR, District 3, 3/17/15 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
In this prosecution for reckless driving causing great bodily harm and homicide by operating with a detectable amount of a controlled substance, the circuit court erroneously excluded Richey’s medical records from evidence at trial, though the error was harmless. More interesting, perhaps, is the issue arising out of the trial court’s post-verdict meeting with the jury. While it wasn’t plain error for the trial judge to meet with the jury after receiving its verdict, what happened in this case causes the court of appeals to suggest trial judges tread carefully when doing so.
Entire treatment record is relevant at ch. 51 extension hearing
Dane County v. P.H., 2014AP1469, District 4, 3/12/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Rejecting P.H.’s claim that the experts who testified based their opinions on “dated” information, the court of appeals finds the evidence was sufficient to extend P.H.’s ch. 51 commitment.
Evidence was sufficient to support ch. 51 medication order
Winnebago County v. Brian C., 2014AP2792-FT, District 2, 3/11/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The record supports the trial court’s finding that the County met its burden of proving Brian was incompetent to refuse medication under § 51.61(1)(g)4(intro) and b.
Improperly admitted identification evidence doesn’t merit new trial
State v. Joshua Berrios, 2014AP971-CR, District 1, 3/10/15 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
A witness named Trevino had been barred pre-trial from identifying Berrios as the person who shot him; but on cross-examination Trevino unexpectedly testified that Berrios was the shooter. This error does not merit a new trial in the interest of justice, nor does it support a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.